asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any plans to visit Israel or Arab states in the near future.

I have at present no such plans.

I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his reply, but does he not think that he should visit the middle east? When he does, will he take with him a copy of an interview published in The Guardian on 4 July between David Hirst, the middle east correspondent of The Guardian and Abu Musa, leader of the rebel Palestinian sect in the armed struggle going on within the Palestine Liberation Organisation, in which the rebel leader reaffirmed his commitment to the Palestine national charter, which calls for the elimination of Israel? Does that not present the Israelis with only two possible courses of action—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."]

Order. We must have shorter supplementary questions, please.

Does that not pose the Israelis with only two courses of action—either they resist or they connive at their own suicide?

I have in mind the desirability of visiting the area as soon as that can reasonably be managed. However, as the House will appreciate, a number of matters of considerable practical urgency occupy one's time during the second half of the year, including the United Nations General Assembly and the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, quite apart from the European work programme. The Government are in no doubt that the Palestinian people must play a full part in the negotiations on their future, but, on the other hand, we have long argued that the PLO should accept Israel's right to live in peace and renounce terrorism.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend take note of the fact that when our noble Friend Lord Carrington decided to visit Israel there followed a warming of relations between our two countries, which had the effect of making Israel far more receptive to the good ideas that come to it from this country than it ever is when there is coolness between us?

I shall bear my hon. and learned Friend's point in mind.

If the Foreign Secretary visits the middle east, will he reassure all those who are concerned about peace in the area that the PLO is committed to supporting the present leadership of Yasser Arafat, that those who are seeking to interfere with the independence of the PLO are doing so for their own ends, and that it is the Palestine national council that speaks on behalf of the Palestinians, not the rebels in the Beka'a valley?

I should hesitate to pronounce judgment on the present or future implications of what is happening in the PLO with as much confidence as does the hon. Gentleman.

Is not the attempt to extend the Jewish settlement in the Palestinian town of Hebron perhaps one of the most insensitive and callous political acts undertaken by any Government on the face of the earth at the moment? As the Americans seem unable to restrain the Israelis, what initiatives will my right hon. and learned Friend or the European Community be taking to stop the Israelis from colonising Palestine and the west bank?

My hon. Friend draws attention to an important matter, although I do not accept his premise that the Americans are unable or unwilling to attempt to restrain undesirable acts in that part of the world. He can rest assured that, together with our partners in the Ten, we shall continue to bring our influence to bear as far as we can.

Before the Foreign Secretary changes his mind and decides to visit Israel, will he inquire from the Government there what benefits, apart from producing virtual anarchy in the middle east, the unprovoked invasion by Israel of the Lebanor has produced?

It is because we understand the thinking behind the hon. Gentleman's question that we are doing all that we can to urge all parties to the Israel-Lebanon agreement to agree to an early withdrawal of their forces.

May I urge the Foreign Secretary to pay an early visit to the middle east, particularly in the light of the fragile relationships that exist in that area and the great danger to all of us that lies in that strain? Especially in the light of the increasing internal tensions within the PLO, is it not time that the British Government used some of their influence to break the log jam between the United States Government and the Government of the Soviet Union in an effort to ensure that the Soviet Union uses its influence in Syria to see that the Israel-Lebanon agreement is adhered to?

The House should not assume from the fact that I have not yet made plans to visit the area that I attach any less importance to the area and its problems than does the hon. Gentleman. He must understand that there are practical limitations that must dictate the timetable. Our potential influence there is of course limited, but, so far as we are able to do so, we shall continue to play the active part that our history and interests dictate in searching for a solution and pressing all the parties concerned to seek one.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will report recent progress at the disarmament negotiations presently taking place.

Progress in the START and INF negotiations remains disappointingly slow because of Soviet intransigence. In the INF negotiations the Russians are refusing to negotiate about a bilaterally balanced solution. At the mutual and balanced force reductions talks, the East will not agree force levels or effective provisions for verification. In the negotiations in Geneva to ban chemical weapons some progress has been made, but important problems of verification remain.

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply, but in connection with the INF talks in Geneva will he confirm that the Russians have made no constructive response whatever to President Reagan's zero option? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there are millions on both sides of the iron curtain who yearn for the Russians to enter into serious negotiations aimed at dismantling their SS20s, which would lead to the West not having to deploy cruise missiles? Does he agree that that is the safest and most practical way ahead to encourage nuclear disarmament?

I entirely accept what my hon. Friend says. We have offered the prospect of serious negotiations within the INF talks, and we are still awaiting a positive response of the kind that my hon. Friend would like.

What view does the Foreign Secretary take of the fact that Herr Genscher has again brought up the question of the informal walk in the woods agreement? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that there is a possibility of advance on that basis?

One should hesitate before building any conclusions on what may or may not be reported about recent exchanges on that previous discussion. It is important to note that the visit to the Soviet Union by Chancellor Kohl, accompanied by Foreign Minister Genscher, has been an impressive opportunity to make plain the firmness of the West in its approach to disarmament and our determination to deploy the weapons as necessary and as agreed, but that that determination is accompanied by an equal determination to embark on disarmament negotiations if the Soviet Union is willing to move.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend say when he expects the INF talks to resume? Are they open-ended, or will they automatically terminate, either with an agreement before Christmas or with the arrival of the first cruise missiles in Western Europe?

Without specific notice, I cannot give the date of the recommencement. The date has recently been changed, and unfortunately I do not have the date in my mind.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman should do his homework.

The scene is changing rapidly, and the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) must be patient. I would rather give an accurate answer than a speculative one. The answer to the second part of my hon. Friend's question is that there is no reason to suppose that the INF negotiations will be interrupted by deployment on or after 15 November.

Does the Foreign Secretary think it significant that it was after the visit to Moscow that Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher made the reported suggestion of reviving at Geneva the walk in the woods agreement? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not think that it would be irresponsible if Western Governments went ahead with the immediate deployment of cruise and Pershing missiles when there is a possibility that an agreement might be reached at Geneva on the basis of the tentative agreement that was arrived at last year?

The hon. Gentleman should not jump to any conclusion of that nature as a result of reports on which he may now be drawing. The best prospect for headway on the INF negotiations will follow from the firm commitment of the West to deployment, as already announced. That will be proceeded with, and it is on that basis that we strongly support the goal which we put forward of the zero option.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the United Kingdom is party to any international agreements concerning extra-terrestrial bodies.

The United Kingdom is a party to the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, often called, for short, the Outer Space Treaty 1967.

I hope that the question has not caused the Minister or any of his advisers any sleepless nights. On behalf of terrestrials, as well as extra-terrestrials, could the Minister, his right hon. and learned Friend, and the Government make representations to President Reagan against the extension of weapons to outer space, which threatens to destroy the whole of our civilisation, if not civilisations beyond?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that his question has caused no sleepless nights. I further assure him that the propositions in President Reagan's speech of 23 March, to which he refers, on defensive technologies are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Outer Space Treaty 1967.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in the area of human rights at the Helsinki review discussions in Madrid.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the review conference on the Helsinki final act in Madrid.

There is provisional agreement among 34 of the 35 participants on the text of the concluding document. We hope that consensus may soon be reached so that the meeting may be brought to a conclusion.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, despite the tremendous efforts of Ambassadors Wilberforce and Williams on behalf of the United Kingdom over the years in Madrid, the worst forms of offence against human rights have continued to be perpetrated by the Russians, who are now persecuting Yosef Begun, whose trial is next week, who have carried on their persecution of Shcharansky and others, and who have closed the door to the emigration of Jews to the state of Israel, which is a fundamental human right? To repeat a question that was asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) yesterday, is this not just agreement for agreement's sake?

I do not accept my hon. and learned Friend's description of the outcome of the Madrid talks. However, I agree with him that the progress being made in that direction is certainly disappointing and much less than we should like. I agree, too, that actions of which we would all complain, and about which we feel as strongly as he does, are still taking place. However, continued pressure in this direction and the exposure of the misdeeds of the Soviet Union and other countries, as a result of the Helsinki process, have been facilitated. The negotiations at Madrid have enabled us to press forward with criticisms and advance the representations which my hon. and learned Friend wishes us to make on behalf of these people. In this process, which must proceed step by step, the Madrid agreement will be of some value.

Has not the gravest disappointment of Madrid been for those, who like Dr. Yuri Orlov, have been imprisoned for establishing Helsinki monitoring groups? Will my right hon. and learned Friend give an undertaking that no agreement will be signed until ar amnesty has been granted to members of monitoring groups?

I cannot give such an undertaking, but I can say that my hon. Friend has raised legitimate points on behalf of monitoring groups, Mr. Shcharansky and others. They are points that we have continually pressed on the Soviet Union, both inside and outside the context of these negotiations, and we shall continue to do so.

What arrangements have been agreed at Madrid for monitoring both at Helsinki and the agreement itself?

It proved impossible to obtain consensus on a Western proposal to ensure that all individuals could express their views on the respect shown by the Governments for the final act. However, there is a commitment in the concluding document to encourage genuine efforts to implement that act, which will afford at least some protection to the Helsinki monitoring groups.

While considering the question of human rights, will my right hon. and learned Friend consider whether he should advise the Government to sign protocol 6 to the European Convention on Human Rights, which seeks to write into the convention the abolition of the death penalty? In view of the overwhelming majorities by which certain motions were rejected in the House last week, that would seem to be an appropriate course of action for the Government to take.

That is certainly a matter that I am prepared to discuss with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the relations of the United Kingdom with Chile.

We maintain normal diplomatic relations with Chile.

What was the purpose of the recent visit to London of General Matthei and other representatives of the Chilean Government? Did any talks take place between Ministers or Government officials and the Chilean party?

General Matthei visited London in March 1983. He met the chief of air staff, other Royal Air Force officers and Ministry of Defence officials to discuss professional air force matters and potential defence sales. He paid a courtesy call on my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement.

Will the Foreign Secretary make it clear to the Chilean junta that the Government are completely opposed to the repression of democracy and human rights? Will he support the demand for the release of more than 30 trade union leaders who are now in prison?

The Government have never left the Chilean Government in any doubt about our concern at their poor human rights performance, of which the recent detention of Senor Valdes and his colleagues is a lamentable example. When my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) visited Chile in April as the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, he made the Government's concern clear to the Chilean Government and called on Cardinal Silva and the acting chairman of the Chilean commission on human rights.

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the 10-year-old Pinochet regime is now in its last throes, as shown by recent events? Therefore, will the Government reassess their policies, military and otherwise?

Not being the possessor of a crystal ball, I cannot forecast the future of the present Chilean Government, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that Her Majesty's ambassador in Santiago, in company with the other Community ambassadors, protested vigorously on 11 July to the Chilean Foreign Minister at the detention of Senor Valdes and the other Christian Democrat leaders. The Greek Government, in their present capacity as president of the Community, also expressed to the Chilean ambassador in Athens the concern of all 10 Community members at the detentions and the repression of political freedom in Chile. As the hon. Gentleman will know, Senor Valdes was released from detention on 13 July.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last discussed with the United States Government the situation in Central America.

Central America was one of the topics I discussed when I met Secretary of State Shultz in Washington on 14 July.

Is there anyone in the Foreign Office who is aware that there is a deepening crisis in Central America which is being made worse by American naval manoeuvres in the area, increased involvement with regressive Governments there and now the suggestion that Dr. Henry Kissinger is to become involved? Will the Foreign Secretary take his courage in both hands and issue a word of caution to the President of the United States about that?

The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right to draw attention to the serious features arising from events and conditions in that area, and the fact that the United States Government have appointed a commission which includes Dr. Kissinger is just one measure of their concern for the seriousness of the situation. It must be remembered that, as they have said, they are seeking to secure, as are many other people, including the Contadora group, peace in that area, the restoration of stable social conditions, and, as much as anyone else, to diminish the flow of arms to that part of the world.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there is on the Order Paper an early-day motion signed by 25 Labour Members criticising the Government on the ground that they invited to Britain this week ex-President Duarte of E1 Salvador, because he is said to be involved in violence and to be undemocratic? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, to the contrary, ex-President Duarte has suffered exile and torture because of his belief in democracy and that during his visit to Europe he was received by the Socialist Prime Minister of Spain and the leaders of three other EC countries?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to those facts. Senor Duarte has indeed been received by several European leaders and criticism of him here comes ill from those who signed that early-day motion.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has had any discussions with a view to achieving early implementation of the Israel-Lebanon agreement; and, if so, what assurances he has received that Syrian forces and Palestine Liberation Organisation terrorist groups will withdraw from the Lebanon at the same time as Israeli forces.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether his Department has had discussions with the Saudi Arabian authorities to ask them to use their influence with the Syrians to withdraw their troops from sovereign Lebanese territory.

The Israel-Lebanon agreement was a welcome step forward, and we are doing what we can in all our contacts to create the conditions in which it can be implemented. The Syrians and the PLO are well aware of our view that they should take this opportunity to withdraw their forces from Lebanon.

As my right hon. and learned Friend rightly acknowledges the fact that responsibility for that sad state of affairs largely rests in the hands of the PLO and Syrian terrorists, will he use his endeavours to ensure that the United Nations Security Council introduces sanctions against Syria until such time as she makes it possible for the Israeli forces to withdraw?

We certainly intend to make plain to the Syrian Government, as we have already done, that the best way to bring about the withdrawal of Israeli forces is for them to agree to withdraw their forces from Lebanon. I should like to think rather longer about my hon. Friend's first point.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the only way to a free and independent Lebanon is the complete withdrawal of all foreign troops, and that the way to achieve that is surely to use all the means at our disposal where we have influence, particularly with the Saudi Arabians? Will he try to do that?

Certainly the way to the peaceful resolution of the problems in the Lebanon is the withdrawal of all forces from that country. It is right that we should use every means and influence at our disposal. That is what we are trying to do, but we should not overestimate our influence.

Bearing in mind the appalling massacres of Palestinians last year in Beirut, with Israeli connivance, will the Government, with our European allies, do everything in their power to ensure that the Palestinians in south Lebanon are given adequate protection in the next critical months?

I shall certainly bear in mind my hon. Friend's important point.

Does not the present civil war within the PLO make it impossible to draw that organisation into negotiations or even discussions about withdrawal, as we could not be sure that any member of the organisation to whom one talked was empowered to speak for the whole of the organisation?

When dealing with any organisation it is important to have an understanding of the authority, or lack of authority, of all those who seek to speak for it. The key feature is that the Palestinian people must play a full part in the negotiations affecting their future.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will seek to meet representatives of the Falkland Islands Company to discuss Government policy on the Falkland Islands.

Ministers and officials already discuss regularly a wide range of matters with those who have a significant interest in the Falkland Islands, including the Falkland Islands Company.

Will the Government order an inquiry into reports that the Falkland Islands Company collaborated with occupying Argentine forces last year, to the extent that the company received £93,000 for supplying the Argentine forces and then had the brass neck to claim £2 million war damages from the British Government? Why should a capitalist outfit such as Coalite, with pre-tax profits of over £27 million, be allowed to make a killing out of an unnecessary war in which over 1,000 people lost their lives?

The hon. Gentleman confuses at least three different issues. No one would argue with him about the horror of 1,000 lives being lost.

The Government are giving it a big handout.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit Cyprus.

My right hon. and learned Friend has no immediate plans to do so.

Is the Minister aware that today is the ninth anniversary of the brutal invasion of Cyprus by the Turkish army? Is he further aware that successive Governments have shown little involvement in trying to resolve the tragedy of that invasion?

Of course we regret the slow progress in the inter-communal talks. However, any separate initiative now might cut across the efforts of the United Nations. The Government are ready to give any help to the United Nations, and to the two communities involved, that they would all consider helpful.

Because of the oppression of the Turkish Cypriot minority since 1961, is i: any wonder that they have decided to go it alone and declare an independent state? Is there nothing that we can do to bring the two communities together on equal terms, rather than continue to treat the Turkish-Cypriots as a minority?

The declaration of an independent Turkish Cypriot state would ruin the prospects of the inter-communal talks. We hope that that can be avoided and that progress with the talks can be made under United Nations negotiations.

Will the Minister urge his right hon. and learned Friend, on this ninth anniversary, to give high priority to fulfilling the Government's obligation, as a guarantor power, to the sovereign and territorial integrity of Cyprus? Will he seek the immediate withdrawal of the invading Turkish forces?

The Government recognise their obligation in this difficult issue, but believe that the best way forward is through the inter-communal talks. We shall continue to support them while being alive to any other possible initiatives that may contribute to a settlement.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the United Kingdom still enjoys considerable goodwill among both communities in Cyprus? Should we not be using that goodwill to help bring about a final and just solution in the interests of all the people of that unhappy island?

I recognise the force of my hon. Friend's point. We shall use our position in any area that might be profitable and productive. Currently, the intercommunal talks offer the best hope, although the whole House recognises that they are disappointingly slow.

Does not Britain have a major responsibility for Cyprus? We cannot continue to pass the buck to the stalemated inter-communal talks. Is it not time for a major initiative by the Government, possibly by arranging an early visit to Britain by President Kyprianou? Should we not urge that progress be made in the talks so that we are not left in the same stalemated position for another nine years?

President Kyprianou is due to visit London on 26 July. No doubt this important issue will feature on the agenda of our talks with him. I can only repeat that there is a limit to the influence of any power, including the British Government with their strong historical links with Cyprus. We shall continue to exert all our efforts to get the inter-communal talks moving.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the United Nations Organisation to request that they should exert further influence on Argentina to acknowledge the formal cessation of hostilities in the south Atlantic.

We shall continue to take suitable opportunities to remind members of the United Nations, including Argentina, that the threat or use of force to settle international disputes is forbidden under the United Nations charter.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many people in this country are fed up with the way in which the Italians and the French are so eager to re-arm Argentina to the threshold of our defence capabilities in the Falklands? Is it not time for the United Nations, which is too eager to impose its sanctions on all who try to move towards war, to move with equal alacrity to help those who want peace? Should not the United Nations place some restraint on Israel, which is also seeking to re-arm Argentina?

I hesitate to over-estimate the capacity of the United Nations to act in such a fashion in any of the cases referred to by my hon. Friend. It is certainly regrettable that those armaments are being delivered to Argentina.

Why are the Government refusing to submit the dispute on sovereignty of the Falkland Islands to the International Court of Justice, in accordance with our international obligations?

Because there has been a long and abortive history for many years past.

As Argentina is almost financially bankrupt, will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that any future negotiations with or through the IMF on funds for Argentina are not proceeded with until that country recognises a ceasefire in the south Atlantic?

Under the articles of the IMF, it is not possible to attach political conditions to the relationship between the founder and member countries. It is possible to attach certain financial conditions related to the fulfilment of obligations to and by the fund. We cannot attach the conditions suggested by my hon. Friend.

Why cannot such conditions be imposed in international debt negotiations? Why did not the Government seek to do that on the last occasion? Why did they not impose conditions that any loans could not be used for future military purposes?

As I have already said, it is not possible within the rules of the fund—it is designed as an organisation dealing with member states — for conditions such as the hon. Gentleman mentioned to be attached. If we sought to write into a financial organisation political and other conditions, or the power to make such conditions, that would not be fulfilling the nature of the organisation, which is a membership organisation with obligations to and from its members.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish the advice given by his Department to British business men and tourists visiting each of the Arab states concerning local regulations and religious restrictions.

The Department of Trade and Industry publishes advice in its booklets "Hints to Businessmen". The consular department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and British consulates in Arab countries give advice in response to specific inquiries from tourists and other visitors from Britain.

What representations has the Foreign Secretary made to Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states about their refusal last year to allow British subjects to celebrate Christmas? What representations is he making about the rights of British citizens to celebrate Christmas this year?

We have no evidence that any Arab Government prevented anyone from celebrating Christmas last year. However, a specific case arose in Saudi Arabia last Christmas, which led to British expatriates being asked to leave Saudi Arabia a few months later. The Government have made strong representations to Saudi Arabia about that case.

Is it not incongruous that Arab states attach such great importance, and rightly so, to access to Islamic holy places in Jerusalem while being so reluctant to allow religious freedom to Christmas and Jews in their own countries?

The question is related to the advice that we give to British subjects about the conditions, traditions and customs of particular countries. When individuals go to particular countries it is important for them to take account of certain facts and it is those that we make available to the public.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards improving relations between the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom.

We have consistently made it clear to the Soviet leadership that a more constructive relationship is possible if the Soviet Union is prepared to show restraint and discontinue policies that increase international tension.

Does the Minister and the Foreign Secretary agree with the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym), the previous Foreign Secretary, who said that dialogue with the Russians had become rather thin and urged, during the debate on the Queen's Speech, that there should be closer contacts between the two countries? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that whatever disagreements we may have—often they are strong—with the Russian method of government, it is necessary and useful to have good Anglo-Soviet relations?

We agree that there is a need for constructive dialogue and it is for that reason that I was in Moscow several weeks ago.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards further enlargement of the European Community after the accession of Spain and Portugal.

This is a hypothetical question. If there were further applications for European Community membership, the Community would need to consider them on their merits in accordance with article 237 of the Treaty of Rome.

Is it the non-hypothetical policy of Her Majesty's Government actively to encourage the enlargement of the Community, especially by the accession of other Scandinavian countries?

It is for any European state that shares our democratic and parliamentary traditions to apply, if it so wishes, for membership of the Community. Any application would then be considered in accordance with the terms of the treaty.

Will the hon. Gentleman explain the exact nature of the Government's policy on the accession of Spain? Yesterday his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) that

"Spain cannot enter the EC until the restrictions on the border between Spain and Gibraltar are lifted."—[Official Report, 19 July 1983; Vol. 46, c. 178.]

It is the British Government's desire that Spain should become a member of the Community. If it wishes to do so, it must recognise that Gibraltar is part of the Community and that it would be inconceivable if Spain, as a member of the Community, did not allow movement across its frontiers with Gibraltar similar to that which it would provide for other member countries.

Before coming to any agreement on the accession of Spain and Portugal, will the Government ensure that British horticulture will not be ruined and that the transitional period will be sufficiently long to prevent such damage?

It is likely that Spain will require a long transitional period before becoming a full member of the Community. I can assure my hon. Friend that the considerations that she has raised will be taken into account during the negotiations.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when next he will attend a meeting of the Council of Ministers of the European Community.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when next he will be attending a meeting of the Council of Ministers; what subjects will be discussed; and if he will make a statement.

The next regular Foreign Affairs Council is due to take place on 19 and 20 September. We will not know what items will definitely be discussed until nearer the time, but it is possible that the agenda will include European Community-United States steel, Greenland's application to withdraw from the Community and the regional development fund regulation.

Will the Minister seek to retrieve the unseemly situation that has led our Industry Ministers recently to stress that there will be no further contraction of Britain's steel industry until our European partners fulfil their obligations to contract? Is he aware that substantial redundancies and contractions were being arranged in Britain at the very time when the Ministers' supposedly robust comments were made? Is this position not completely preposterous, and does it not demonstrate that our partners must regard Britain as an extremely soft touch?

The United Kingdom has made substantial reductions in the capacity of its steel industry. That has happened primarily because of our own assessment of the industry's needs. Those reductions must be taken into account by other Community countries in the light of the Commission's further proposals.

Will the Minister and his right hon. and learned Friend express concern and disgust at the present hold-up of investment in the British steel industry by the Common Market? Will he draw its attention to the fact that not so long ago it was turning a blind eye to expansion of the Italian steel industry while our industry, under its direction, was being cut to ribbons?

The bulk of the cuts that have been made in the steel industry in the Community have been made by the United Kingdom industry. Italy has increased its capacity over the past few years.

How can the British Government support a further contraction of the British steel industry when the Government, out of their own mouth, have admitted that the British steel industry has cut its capacity more than any of its competitors in Europe? How can the Government accept that there will be a reduction in the duty on wines, which come from countries outside the United Kingdom in the main, and an increase in the duty on beer, which is a great and traditional product of this country? I ask my hon. Friend for an assurance that the Government will stand up for British traditions and British interests.

Drink British.

We are considering the implications of the recent judgment of the European Court and I have no doubt that my hon. Friend's comments will be taker into account. The Commission has submitted proposals for small additional cuts in the steel industry to the British Government. We are considering our response to the proposals and we shall take into account the considerations raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Will the Minister give the House an assurance that when he next attends a meeting of the Council of Ministers he will not agree to any increase in our VAT contributions to the EC budget?

During the Stuttgart summit my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister indicated that any consideration of an increase in the own resources of the Community could be considered only if the Community were able to accept a firm guideline on expenditure and to consider a proposal for redistributing the burden of the expenditure of the Community among the member states. We have said that if these conditions are met we shall be prepared to hear the reasons why other Community countries feel that an increase in own resources would be desirable. We would then proceed to consider the matter on its merits.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress he has made towards finding a solution to the European Community budget problem.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he intends to take to prevent any increase in the size of the European Community budget until satisfactory reforni of the common agricultural policy is agreed.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made towards reaching a long-term solution to the European Community budget problem.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress towards a resolution of budgetary problems was made at the Foreign Affairs Council on 8 July.

As the Prime Minister told the House on 23 June, the European Council at Stuttgart on 17 to 19 of June agreed that urgent negotiations would be started on the future financing of the Community and that the result of the negotiations would be submitted to the next European Council in Athens on 6 December. The first meeting of the special Council, which is to prepare the ground for decisions at Athens, took place in Brussels on 8 July. Agreement was reached at this meeting on the timetable for future meetings of the special Council and on procedural questions.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend give the House an assurance that there will be no further increase in Britain's contribution to the EC budget until such time as our EC partners are prepared to accept the admirable principles that he outlined in his statement yesterday?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks about my statement. The purpose of making it was to impress the Government's propositions upon our colleagues.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recall that when the Prime Minister returned from Stuttgart she boasted that she was getting a rebate of £450 million? When will that sum be repaid and will it be conditional?

The effect of the agreement that was arrived at in Stuttgart was that provisons for the rebate would be written into the budget that is now under preparation. The money will be repayable—

When?

—to this country on the same timetable as in previous years, but in Britain's financial year. There are no conditions attached to that. It has emerged clearly from what my right hon. Friend has said about Stuttgart that agreement on the refund to the United Kingdom was not conditional or dependent upon other agreements that were arrived at in Stuttgart.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the extension of regional development and energy policies in the Community, from which Britain would benefit disproportionately, could play a part in the long-term solution of the budget problem?

I am not sure that I would agree with my hon. Friend in following that approach. If we were to try to solve our budgetary problem by an expansion of the regional fund in order to secure the equivalent of the 750 million ecu that we are getting under the Stuttgart agreement, we should have to enlarge the size of the regional fund until it was twice as large as the entire Community budget. That would not seem to be the most fruitful way of doing it. One of the objects of the arrangement that I was urging yesterday was to put the financing of the budget on a more rational basis, so that member States need not be so preoccupied with whether we do or do not get something out of a particular policy. We can address ourselves to the financing of the budget and then consider the policies on their merits.

As there is an urgent need to create enthusiasm for the EC in this country, and as the budget rebate has been a spectacular success for Her Majesty's Government, is it not now possible to indulge in the best principles of compromise and give and take with the European Parliament and create a truly constructive dialogue for the non-inflationary expansion and modernisation of the budget?

I hesitate in my present capacity to try to analyse all the implications of a non-inflationary expansionary modernisation of the budget, but I certainly agree that it would be useful to endeavour to secure the most fruitful partnership that we can between the Commission, the Council, member states and the Parliament.

Is the Secretary of State aware that an increase in taxation from 1 per cent. to 1·5 per cent. is likely to cost the British taxpayer about £3 million? What steps will he now take to ensure that we get a reasonable return, in view of the fact that the other countries are not likely to change their views on the common agricultural policy? How much is the right hon. and learned Gentleman going to sell us down the river for?

I am not sure that I accept the arithmetic underlying the hon. Gentleman's question, but he is right to draw attention to the fact that an enlargement of own resources would involve an additional burden to the budgetary burden on the people of this country.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman increase VAT?

The reason why I believe that it is right to say that the argument against accepting the case for enlarging own resources is likely to be considered seriously is that an agreement to enlarge own resources involves the concurrence of the Council and of each Parliament of the member states. In place of that balance of relationships, the proposition that one cannot automatically accept the case for enlarging own resources must be taken seriously.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend undertake to make it plain to his colleagues on the continent that VAT places a heavy burden on the consumer, the poor as well as the rich? Will it be his intention to oppose any increase in VAT?

One can certainly understand the case that if VAT or any other tax increases beyond a certain point, it becomes more of a burden. The argument that we are considering in the European Community is not, in fact, whether that tax should be increased, but whether the tax revenue to be handed over as own resources should be calculated by reference to a notional increase in the tax.

It is going up.

The real question is whether we allow an increase in own resources. We have placed the burden of proof firmly on those who seek to make that case.

Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that the resources of the Community are drying up and that by October there will be a financial crisis if own resources are not increased? As the British net contribution this year is £1,140 million, which is about equal to the entire British aid programme to the Commonwealth and the countries of the underdeveloped world, when will the right hon. and learned Gentleman come to the House to say what action he will take to ensure that Britain gets a fair deal in the Market?

The position is straightforward. The present arrangement for financing; the Community is leading to the position that the hon. Gentleman described. The resources available to the Community are running out. Any increase in those so-called own resources has to be made by shifting resources from somewhere else—from the taxpayer or the consumer. We are saying that that case must be proved. We also say that whatever arrangements are made for financing the Community in future, Britain should not bear an unduly large share of the cost. In pursuit of that case we have been successful, over the past four years, in securing a refund of two thirds of our potential maximum contribution. Over the past four years we have been successful in securing refunds of £2,500 million. That is an indication of the energy with which we conduct the case.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he intends submitting to the next meeting of the Council of Ministers with the objective of furthering community development; and if he will make a statement.

I shall be amplifying the ideas that I introduced at the meeting of the special Council yesterday on a safety net arrangement that will ensure that no member state will have to bear an excessive budgetary burden, and for a financial framework governing the growth of agricultural expenditure.

As a significant proportion of the expenditure on the common agricultural fund is essentially social, so that it is in effect, a rural support fund, will my right hon. and learned Friend consider advocating the formal introduction of a rural fund to ensure the continued viability of rural areas through enhanced infrastructure and other forms of investment?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the importance of a sensible agricultural policy to the rural areas in this country. I am interested in his alternative proposal. The central feature is that there is a limit to the resources that can be found to finance programmes of any type, whether rural or urban.

Does the Secretary of State acknowledge and recognise that if the Government persist in a system of unfair voting for the European Parliament they will not only deprive the people of this country of fair representation in the European Parliament, but will distort the political composition of that Parliament? When does he propose to end the anomaly of Britain being the only country in the European Parliament without a fair system of representation?

The hon. Gentleman's question does not arise out of question 68. That is a different question. I have no proposals to put before the House on that matter.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is important to develop the Community as a political force rather than just consider our budget problems and the problems of economic and industrial development in the Community? In his new portfolio as Foreign Secretary, will he bear in mind that one of the most important contributions that he could make would be to ensure that the Community began to take a further initiative in foreign affairs, particularly on the middle east?

I agree with my hon. Friend about the potential and importance of the Community's role in political co-operation in the middle east as elsewhere. One of the most important political questions for the Community at the moment is the resolution of the longstanding budgetary problem. For too many years now Foreign Ministers as well as Finance Ministers have had to devote too much time to the resolution of recurrent rows in that area. I make no apology for treating that, among other things, as an important political question for the Community.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain in a little more detail than he has hitherto precisely what proposals the Government have for furthering community development? The Government are saying that the proposals for the future of the Community must, more or less, be along the lines of the Government's policies in this country over the past four years. Is he suggesting that we should export Thatcherism to the whole of Europe? We have high unemployment because of Tory policies. Do the Government want even higher unemployment throughout the entire Community?

No, and the hon. Gentleman knows that that is an absurd proposition. The point I am making is that, whether in the Community or in this country, wealth must be created before it can be redistributed or redirected. Whether in the Community or in this country, commonsense principles apply, of which the most important is that finance should determine expenditure and not expenditure determine finance.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has received any invitation to address the European Parliament.

No.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there will be an opportunity, when such an invitation manifests itself, as it no doubt will, to capture the imagination of European politicians and the European public with the real desire of hon. Members in all parts of the House to achieve progress in spheres such as support of European technology, closer co-operation in political, energy and social matters as well as in the promotion of policies for combating unemployment? Is he aware that these policies constantly run into difficulties when they are considered piecemeal? Does he agree therefore that there is an opportunity for an imaginative—

Order. I think that that is quite long enough for a supplementary.

It is normal practice for a Foreign Minister to address the European Parliament only when his country holds the presidency of the Council of Ministers. I agree, however, that my hon. Friend's objectives are highly desirable.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. For the sake of the record I feel that I should point out a serious and misleading statement that was made by the Minister when he replied to my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller)—

Order. Points of order must be addressed to me, but I cannot rule on misleading statements said to have been made by the Foreign Secretary.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you to protect the House in relation to the formulation of Foreign and Commonwealth Question Time? Today we had no fewer than 63 non-EC questions to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office which had to be answered in 35 minutes, whereas we had only 10 EC questions, for which 20 minutes was allotted: nine of the 10 EC questions were answered and only 14 of the non-EC ones were answered.

I wish to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, to the fact that question No. 75 is down in my name to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I know when that right hon. and learned Gentleman answers in the House and I usually manage to table a question to him. The reason why it appears on the Order Paper in its present form is not because I wrote it in that fashion, but because of what occurred when it went to the Table Office.

Order.

I am talking about the transfer—

Order. The hon. Gentleman has managed to put his supplementary question.